Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed? Part II.

[Chanakya]

I would be interested in your reply to Stout's post, right above your post.

Nice side-step. I was curious about what your reply might be, to both of my posts addressed to you.

Of course we should celebrate her; because she is a celebrity.
That's how fandom works..

What's really weird is how some people start frothing at the mouth every time they see Greta or hear her spoken about. What makes presumably sane men obsess day in and day out about what this activisit is doing, and what might explain the visceral hate they feel towards her, that clouds their critical thinking, and pushes them to unthinking murderous rage, lashing out verbally and even physically at anything they encounter that's even remotely related to her? I'm sure some psychiatrist somewhere will one day walk away with the Nobel for their work in understanding these unfortunate creatures, even if they might be too far gone to actually cure.

Eh? You're wondering why I'm saying this? Well, I thought I'd build up a strawman of mine own, and send it out to do battle with yours.

 

[Stout]

What? No she didn't.

2018 surveys conducted in the United States found between 21%[12] and 29%[13] of Americans said they were "very" worried about the climate, double the rate of a similar study in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-anxiety

She wasnt well known in the us until late 2018.

The BBC begs to differ. There were lots of young women stating that they wouldn't bring a child into this world due to climate concerns when Thunberg was out doing her thing. Maybe it was all acting for the camera. I've also received correspondence from my kid's high school about dealing with climate anxiety. Given that thunberg's Twitter feed is a non stop parade of climate disasters and alarmist publications, she
s certainly not helping with climate anxiety.

That bit about the time zones is actually in the CBC link I posted above.

Why can't COP27 just be a virtual meeting? Your questions answered

Why can't it be a virtual conference?
It would be inequitable, said Eddy Pérez, international climate diplomacy director at advocacy group Climate Action Network Canada.

"This meeting is for global representation. And when it comes to global representation, for those who are, are 12,13,14 hours away — where the time zones are completely different, it's inequitable to force them to align to our time zones," he said.

 

[theprestige]

That bit about the time zones is actually in the CBC link I posted above.

Why can't COP27 just be a virtual meeting? Your questions answered

Having worked for corporations that make heavy use of offshore IT talent, I've found that when you're engaged in a profitable enterprise and paying market rates, people in other time zones generally have no problem showing up during your work day, if that's what the job entails.

From which I conclude that the people of COP don't think they're getting paid to solve climate problems, or at least see no profit in the endeavor. But we knew that already.

 

[lobosrul5]

The BBC begs to differ. There were lots of young women stating that they wouldn't bring a child into this world due to climate concerns when Thunberg was out doing her thing. Maybe it was all acting for the camera. I've also received correspondence from my kid's high school about dealing with climate anxiety. Given that thunberg's Twitter feed is a non stop parade of climate disasters and alarmist publications, she
s certainly not helping with climate anxiety.

That bit about the time zones is actually in the CBC link I posted above.

Why can't COP27 just be a virtual meeting? Your questions answered

It was a thing going back to at least 2007 per wiki therefore it didn't start with Greta.

Yeah I read the cbc article and it's pretty facetious imo. We can get people on a jet to another continent but waking up at 2am is asking too much... Wtf???

ETA I'm 100% sure I've had conversations with people choosing not to have kids due to climate change looong before Greta gave her first speech.

 

[Stout]

Eh? You're wondering why I'm saying this? Well, I thought I'd build up a strawman of mine own, and send it out to do battle with yours.

Nah, you posted it so you could have a rant about Thunberg's critics and called it a strawman so you wouldn't look like a total idiot. Nobody is obsessing over Thunberg. In fact this thread was dead as a doornail until the Tate thing, which was wildly hilarious and gave us the most cringeworthy video clapback of the year.

I was hoping somebody would buy her book and post a review. I'm not going to buy it, I can get all my climate info for free.

 

[Stout]

It was a thing going back to at least 2007 per wiki therefore it didn't start with Greta.

Yeah I read the cbc article and it's pretty facetious imo. We can get people on a jet to another continent but waking up at 2am is asking too much... Wtf???

ETA I'm 100% sure I've had conversations with people choosing not to have kids due to climate change looong before Greta gave her first speech.

It could very well go back that far. 2007 was the year of the "private jets for climate change" concert and the height of Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth.

NGO climate activists went to COP 27 because they wanted to go there and needed some sort of justification as to why they couldn't just participate virtually like schools and business had been carrying on in 2020-2021.

It used to be "I'm not bringing a child into this world due to the threat of nuclear war" back when people used to cite the Doomsday Clock.

 

[gnome]

Straw narrative indeed. Nobody in this thread is advocating the do nothing position however there is no room for your personal automobile, even an electric one as pavement, especially for things like parking (in lots, driveways, and on street) is environmentally hostile. Think ebikes and shared use pathways instead.

I think your comments may edge up to what I'm talking about. The gist I get from a lot of your posts is that few would be willing to make the lifestyle changes necessary to support significant emission reductions. That creates an implied conclusion that we might as well not even bother.

I could back off that impression if you say that you don't support the most drastic of targets but that you think more moderate targets can still be meaningful. Is that your opinion?

 

[theprestige]

I think your comments may edge up to what I'm talking about. The gist I get from a lot of your posts is that few would be willing to make the lifestyle changes necessary to support significant emission reductions. That creates an implied conclusion that we might as well not even bother.

I could back off that impression if you say that you don't support the most drastic of targets but that you think more moderate targets can still be meaningful. Is that your opinion?

The point of this thread is that Greta Thunberg was consistently saying that the more moderate targets were meaningless, and that her future could only be preserved by the immediate adoption of the most drastic targets laid out by the IPCC.

And that Greta's enthusiasts have generally repudiated her targets. If Stout says he thinks more moderate targets can still be meaningful, will you say that you never bought into Greta's rhetoric or supported her calls for the most drastic of measures?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I said her her demand that we eliminate the use of fossil fuels was like the idea of ending money, I didn't attribute that idea to her. Both are impossible ideas that pretty much nobody wants.

Yes, and I saw you do it too.

Association fallacy

An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another.

But one is not an impossible idea that nobody wants. Many of us want it very much. But we can't do it when others are actively working against us. Some things can be done by 'grass roots' movements and virtue signalling, but this is too big for that. We need leadership from the top - our governments, who have the power to mandate and organize it. But we need to push them to do it. I wish I had the strength of character, bravery and social skills that Greta Thunberg has. But I never did, and now I am just a 65 year old pensioner with no hope of generating that kind of influence.

I am doing my bit personally, living a frugal lifestyle like my parents taught me. Choosing greener alternatives where practicable, maintaining and reusing old stuff rather than discarding it, and buying pre-owned when I can. I cut my meat intake in half. I haven't used a drop of gas in the last 4 years, and even before that my home was fully electric (almost 100% renewable in my state). My income was so low getting the pension was an increase.

But that's just me. I grew up in a poor family in a rural area where we had to make do with that we had. It didn't bother me. I like being frugal and efficient. I hate waste and destruction. And I don't feel at all envious of those who have more, nor do I rebuke them for it. They live their way, I live mine. This is no virtue signalling, it's just who I am. Even before global warming was a thing I didn't like fossil fuels or the throwaway society.

I haven't felt the need to tell anybody about it until now. Until now I trusted that my government would do the right thing and deal to this problem properly. Unfortunately however, governments are put in power by voters, and many of them don't think like me. Most are just cruising through life without thinking about what their lifestyle is doing to the world we live in.

Most people won't do the right thing off their own bat, and we shouldn't expect them to. That's why we need leadership from the top, from the people we entrust to do that job. And we need people like Greta Thunberg who have the passion and skill needed to make governments sit up and listen. Many of us want to, but few are able. The future of the world depends on her and the few others who have the guts to do it.

And what do you do? Rip her down. Oh yes, you are so much smarter than deluded little Greta the stupid kid who thinks she can make a difference. So much better that you have done... nothing. People like you are the real virtue signalers, always criticizing and never doing, then gleefully saying 'I told you so' when your self-fulfilling prophecies come (even a little bit) true.

 

[Stout]

I think your comments may edge up to what I'm talking about. The gist I get from a lot of your posts is that few would be willing to make the lifestyle changes necessary to support significant emission reductions. That creates an implied conclusion that we might as well not even bother.

I could back off that impression if you say that you don't support the most drastic of targets but that you think more moderate targets can still be meaningful. Is that your opinion?

Yes, more moderate targets, targets that are actually achievable which is pretty much what's going on right now though it could be stepped up a little on the wind and solar in areas that rely on burning fossil fuels for power generation.

Given the heavily polarized nature of politics these days I can see how a Thunberg critic might be taken as wanting to do nothing, or worse however I have been using a rather aggressive "put up or shut up" posting style towards those who are devoted to the Swede who demands an extremist solution.

So what does Thunberg actually ask us to do? Vote, presumably for the political party that will shut off the gas and oil taps. No such party exists(that I'm aware of) which is a pretty tough sell. Go to a demonstration and raise your fist in the air, send sternly worded emails to your politicians, and....well that's pretty much it. Easy right? Just keep on doing what you're doing and demand your government make you stop.

Sure she can model the behaviour she want's to see in the world. Vegan, doesn't fly, probably doesn't own a personal automobile but to demand those behaviours of others is certain to diminish her popularity among her supporters.

 

[theprestige]

Sure she can model the behaviour she want's to see in the world. Vegan, doesn't fly, probably doesn't own a personal automobile but to demand those behaviours of others is certain to diminish her popularity among her supporters.

I dunno about that. I know Greta supporters who think nothing of regular luxury air travel and foreign vacations, whose vehement support of Greta (and vitriolic abuse of anyone who questions the orthodoxy) is second to none.

People seem to have no difficulty being 100% pro-Greta and also 100% anti everything Greta actually stands for. It is that mentality and its proponents that I rail against. Not Greta herself.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Fear mongering? Do you know who Greta Thunberg is ? She pretty much created climate anxiety in young people and if my post is what you consider fear mongering then you need to brush up on your Thunberg. Start with "we are at the beginning of a mass extinction."

That's a flat-out lie and you know it.

Thunberg is just the latest in a whole line of people who were accused of the same thing. Perhaps that was somewhat justified when the crisis was decades away. But now it isn't. You don't have to know anything she said - or even to have heard of her at all - to be anxious about global warming.

Climate emergency declaration

A climate emergency declaration or declaring a climate emergency is an action taken by governments and scientists to acknowledge humanity is in a climate emergency. The first such declaration was made by a local government in December 2016. Since then over 2,100 local governments in 39 countries have made climate emergency declarations (as of May 2022). Populations covered by jurisdictions that have declared a climate emergency amount to over 1 billion citizens.

We are way past it just being something in the future to perhaps be anxious about. It's happening all around us, and will only get worse. But this isn't by any means the first time people got anxious about it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Since then over 2,100 local governments in 39 countries have made climate emergency declarations..

I thought emergencies were usually followed by some kind of action besides lip service.

Still no reason to believe Greta's activism has had any effect on the problem.

 

[Stout]

Yes, and I saw you do it too.

Association fallacy

Fallacy schmallacy, Thunberg's whole shtick is an appeal to emotion. "You stole my childhood!" Oh yea, totally logical.

So what now. Fuel rationing maybe? The whole raise fuel prices via carbon taxes is a joke at least it is to the guy I watched fill up his Boston Whaler 38, with 3x350 Hp outboards on the back (fuel consumption 32,7 GPH) with +1000 liters of fuel, just to go fishing. Oh yea, sure that guy's really going to care about the cost of fuel. High fuel prices are a good way of torturing the poor though, if that's your thing.

And what do you do? Rip her down. Oh yes, you are so much smarter than deluded little Greta the stupid kid who thinks she can make a difference. So much better that you have done... nothing. People like you are the real virtue signalers, always criticizing and never doing, then gleefully saying 'I told you so' when your self-fulfilling prophecies come (even a little bit) true.

I'm not kept awake, tossing and turning, then coming to the conclusion the whole world is "all wrong" then somehow finding an massive international media platform to constantly spout my house is on fire everything must change rhetoric on now am I?.

Celebrities perform, we give feedback and sometimes that feedback isn't what the performer nor their fans want to hear. But hey, tons of people like The Kardashians.

 

[gnome]

The point of this thread is that Greta Thunberg was consistently saying that the more moderate targets were meaningless, and that her future could only be preserved by the immediate adoption of the most drastic targets laid out by the IPCC.



And that Greta's enthusiasts have generally repudiated her targets. If Stout says he thinks more moderate targets can still be meaningful, will you say that you never bought into Greta's rhetoric or supported her calls for the most drastic of measures?

I'd be willing to consider if her targets are too aggressive. I do want to hear from Stout on the matter.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[gnome]

Yes, more moderate targets, targets that are actually achievable which is pretty much what's going on right now though it could be stepped up a little on the wind and solar in areas that rely on burning fossil fuels for power generation.



Given the heavily polarized nature of politics these days I can see how a Thunberg critic might be taken as wanting to do nothing, or worse however I have been using a rather aggressive "put up or shut up" posting style towards those who are devoted to the Swede who demands an extremist solution.



So what does Thunberg actually ask us to do? Vote, presumably for the political party that will shut off the gas and oil taps. No such party exists(that I'm aware of) which is a pretty tough sell. Go to a demonstration and raise your fist in the air, send sternly worded emails to your politicians, and....well that's pretty much it. Easy right? Just keep on doing what you're doing and demand your government make you stop.



Sure she can model the behaviour she want's to see in the world. Vegan, doesn't fly, probably doesn't own a personal automobile but to demand those behaviours of others is certain to diminish her popularity among her supporters.

This actually helps me understand better where you stand. It's funny how common ground can be easier to find when the conversation moves away from personalities.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[Stout]

I thought emergencies were usually followed by some kind of action besides lip service.

Still no reason to believe Greta's activism has had any effect on the problem.

I live in one of those climate emergency areas, We've got some new bike lanes, sidewalks, and these weird little "parks" on downtown streets that take up 3-4 on street parking spaces.

Oh yea there were these teeny tiny little wheeled gardens, big enough to grow three heads of romaine lettuce if you crammed them in but most business who got them to signal their commitment to food security put those brightly coloured decorative broccoli and cauliflower plants in them.

We got a free bike (and scooter, skateboard,etc) valet service last summer because nobody was bringing their bikes downtown on the shiny new bike lanes since crackheads would steal their bikes.

We're also a nuclear weapons free zone.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Yes, more moderate targets, targets that are actually achievable which is pretty much what's going on right now...

Given the heavily polarized nature of politics these days I can see how a Thunberg critic might be taken as wanting to do nothing, or worse

Your 'more moderate targets... pretty much what's going on right now' is so close to nothing right now it might as well be nothing.

So what does Thunberg actually ask us to do? Vote, presumably for the political party that will shut off the gas and oil taps. No such party exists

Er, no. She asks you to not vote for the party that doesn't intend to do anything - and tell them you won't vote for them until they do. Nothing goads a politician to action faster than thinking they will lose votes. Most governments are clinging to power with a slim majority. It only takes 5% to say "do this or else" and they are out. And they are watching the opinion polls, so you don't have to actually vote to get action.

Sure she can model the behaviour she want's to see in the world. Vegan, doesn't fly, probably doesn't own a personal automobile but to demand those behaviours of others is certain to diminish her popularity among her supporters.

Make up your mind, is Thunberg ignoring the people and trying to influence governments instead, or does she think virtue signalling her peers will do the trick? 'Why can't it be both?" you say. And you are right. It is both - it must be both. But Thunberg isn't the only one saying this.

Over-consumption of meat is a well known issue that is driving excessive land use. It has to stop. You say her wanting others to be vegan will diminish her popularity among her supporters. But the vegan movement is growing fast, especially among young people who make up many of her supporters. And many of the rest who don't want to give up meat entirely still recognize the need to cut down - for our own health as well the planet's.

"probably doesn't own a personal automobile" - And? I didn't have a driver's license until I needed it for work, and didn't have a personal vehicle until I was 22. Later on I worked for months at a time in big cities where having a car was a liability. Biking, walking and public transport worked for me, as it does for many people around the world (OTOH my brother gets the SUV out to go 2 blocks). Many of us don't need to drive as much as we do, and many who do could get an electric car. Even though I have an electric car, I still bike and walk when I can. I don't fly either. Where would I go?

But I see where you are coming from. What red-blooded American (or other westerner) is willing to give up their excessive lifestyle just to save the planet (and themselves)? Nobody! Why, I'm not having some little girl from Sweden telling me what I can eat or drive! They will pry that heart-attack inducing steak from my cold dead hand! I'll be rolling coal until my lungs turn black! And that goes double for anyone else too - the government, scientists, my doctor. Screw them all!

But pitch me some more 'moderate' targets which are pretty much what I'm doing right now, and I'll be glad to support you. I mean, I'm all for saving the planet so long I don't have to do anything different. You can do that, right? Just make it 'gradual' and everything will be fine!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Fallacy schmallacy, Thunberg's whole shtick is an appeal to emotion. "You stole my childhood!" Oh yea, totally logical.

Yet it's OK for you do it.

There's a time and place for emotional appeals. This forum isn't it.

So what now. Fuel rationing maybe?

It's been necessary in the past, but no. Let the market take care of it I say. Once people see the cost advantage of electric vehicles it's all over for fossil fuels.

The whole raise fuel prices via carbon taxes is a joke at least it is to the guy I watched fill up his Boston Whaler 38, with 3x350 Hp outboards on the back (fuel consumption 32,7 GPH) with +1000 liters of fuel, just to go fishing. Oh yea, sure that guy's really going to care about the cost of fuel. High fuel prices are a good way of torturing the poor though, if that's your thing.

My brother's not poor, but when the price of gas got over $3 a gallon he started cutting back.

Some won't of course, and it's their right to spend their money as they see fit. But one fisherman isn't causing global warming all by himself. Even if a hundred fishermen were doing what he did every day, it would still be insignificant compared to the thousands of cars going down the highway. Most people don't understand that though. They look at the optics, but not the numbers.

When the price of marine fuel goes up, so does the price of fish. Then people buy less fish, so fishermen fish less. Maybe a few recreational users are rich enough to ignore fuel prices, but they are very few. Some of them might not be rich for much longer either, if their businesses are affected in other ways.

But hey, frame it as 'torturing the poor' for the win! I've been 'poor' for many years, but in 2019 I needed a replacement vehicle and decided now was the time to get a Leaf. It cost about the same as a good gas car of the same age, though its general condition was much better due to the cleaner operation of electric. Only downside was less range, but I don't have so far to go these days and can always hire a car if I need to go on a long trip (probably never).

This was quite a leap for me though, despite my vast knowledge of electronics and battery power devices. The biggest problem turned out to be? Overcoming my fear of a 'new' technology (even though the car was 8 years old). But my geriatric neighbor already had one and she seemed to be handling it OK, so...

I can totally understand why the average person might be fearful of making the switch. But they should recognize it as such - fear, not rational choice. Electric cars are nicer to drive and cost less to own, especially with current gas prices. Who knows when or whether they will come down? Meanwhile every mile I drive is money in the bank compared to a gas car. The environmental costs of my Leaf were already 99% paid for when I got it, and the longer I keep it the better. Guilt-free motoring and saving money at the same time!

This idea that we can't fight global warming because it will 'torture the poor' stinks. They will suffer the most if we don't. But global warming didn't create them, we did - by not paying them a livable wage. Instead we opted for cheaper stuff, union busting and letting the rich get richer. There's no technical reason people have to be so poor that any upset will 'torture' them.

Personally I think owning a gas car when you are poor is torture. High maintenance costs because your old car is wearing out, having to drive long distances when you can't afford it, paying excessive insurance because some rich prick might run into you etc. When you are poor a car costs a lot of money to own! But everyone expects you to have one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Still no reason to believe Greta's activism has had any effect on the problem.

Repeat a lie often enough might work elsewhere. It's not likely to make a difference on this forum despite the fact there are a couple of fans of this POV.